IMPORTANT POINT
Selection process cannot be changed midway.
Allocation of marks for written test and interview depends upon nature of the post.

Judgment :

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. –

1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 5.4.2013, passed by the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in W.P.C.T. Nos.607-610 of 2012 partly allowing the appeals against the judgment and order dated 24.8.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta (Circuit Bench, Port Blair) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') allowing the O.A. No.124/AN/2010 and quashing the appointment orders dated 5.2.2009 and 4.6.2009.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are:

A. That an advertisement dated 4.2.2008 was published by the respondent authorities calling for applications from eligible candidates as well as from those who were registered with the Employment Exchange for appointment to the 8 posts of Group 'D' staff. The recruitment rules only provided for a written examination having 50 maximum marks.

B. The written examination was held on 25.1.2009 which was given by 870 candidates out of which 573 candidates obtained 20 and above marks.

C. A press notice dated 27.1.2009 was issued calling the successful candidates for interview, though such interview was not part of the recruitment process.

D. The interviews were conducted and a final result sheet was published. In pursuance thereto, appointment letters were issued to the appellants herein.

E. Challenging the said appointments, the unsuccessful candidates filed Original Application before the Tribunal which was allowed, quashing such appointments as equal marks were earmarked for both the written examination and interview which is impermissible in law and that the interview was never part of the recruitment process and thereby ordering initiation of fresh recruitment process.

F. The appointees/appellants challenged the said order before the High Court. The High Court upheld the reasoning of the Tribunal but modified the order to the extent of continuing the recruitment process from the point it stood vitiated.

G. In pursuance of the judgment and order of the High Court, termination letters were issued to the appellants.

Hence, these appeals.

3. Shri Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the employer has a right to prescribe for a higher qualification or a stringent test than prescribed under the statutory rules in order to select the best candidates and once the selection is over and the candidates appeared without any protest, they cannot be permitted to make a summer salt and challenge the selection as a whole. Thus, the judgments impugned i.e. of the Tribunal as well as of the High Court are liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, Shri R. Balasubramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the appeals contending that it was not permissible for the employer to change the rule of the game after the selection process commenced even if the employer is entitled for prescribing a higher qualification or a stringent test than prescribed under the rules. In the instant case as the finding of fact has been recorded by the courts below that there had been no transparency in awarding the marks in interview and the interview marks could not be same as that of the written test, the court should not grant any indulgence in such case. Hence, the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. This Court has considered the issue involved herein in great detail in Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 3714, and held as under:

"11. In Shri Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa & Ors., AIR1987 SC 2267, this Court considered the Orissa Judicial Service Rules which did not provide for prescribing the minimum cut-off marks in interview for the purpose of selection. This Court held that in absence of the enabling provision for fixation of minimum marks in interview would amount to amending the Rules itself. W